Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
leaders and actually creates an environment because of their living conditions that is not conducive to readiness. >> chris: colonel mcsally those are the two basic arguments. you are a combat pilot but arge onsil limations, rticularly to servining the infant and also this question of a distractiorin dung operations when you are in closquarters there iso privacy and rugged living conditions. look in your camera and tll genel boykin why he is wrong? >> l me just say tt i reale that flying combat aircraftnd bying on the ground in combat are two vy different mission e salawed arguments were used against allowingwon to fly in combat and now allowing women to in ground combat glikeeral bykin has sd. these arflawed arguments. we need to treat people like individuals. hicht are t capabilitieshe t includes physical strength courage, appls tay and leadership. we are a country that sets stanrds and allows peopl to compe as individuals. d if they bri the better nso should be able to compete on l grounds. i'not talking abt changing standards. i'm talking about allowing people to be considere fo
there which puts a burden on the small unit combat leaders and actually creates an environment because of their living conditions that is not conducive to readiness. >> chris: colonel mcsally those are the two basic arguments. you are a combat pilot but normally you are not in combat on the frontlines. you are attached to combat units and the two arguments are one, physical limitations, particularly to serving in the infantry and also this question of a distraction during operations when you are in close quarters there is no privacy and rugged living conditions. look in your camera and tell general boykin why he is wrong? >> let me just say that i realize that flying combat aircraft and bying on the ground in combat are two very different missions. the same flawed arguments were used against allowing women to fly in combat and now allowing women to be in ground combat like general boykin has said. these are flawed arguments. the bottom line is we need to treat people like individuals. what are the capabilities they bring to the fight which includes physical strength plus courage, appea
creates an environment because of their living conditions that is not conducive to readiness. >> chris: colonel mcsally, those are the two basic arguments. you are a combat pilot but you are not formally, not in combat on the front lines, you are attached to combat units and the two arguments are, one, physical limitations, particularly to serving in the infantry and also the question of a distraction during operations, when you are in close quarters, there is no privacy and rugged living conditions and look in your camera and tell general boykin why he's wrong. >> let me just say i realize flying combat aircraft and being on the ground in combat are two very different missions, hover the same flawed arguments were used against allowing women to fly in combat and now allowing them to be on ground combat. like the general said these are flawed arguments the battle line is we need to treat people like individuals. what are the capabilities they bring to the fight. which includes physical strength, plus courage, plus aptitude and leadership and, all the other things we need to have the mo
these decisions have on the environment that the u.s. is in. for most of history, we have maintained a strong military, not so that we can fight, but so that we can not fight. the other. that time made that is important -- the other point that tom made is to understand what is involved in military operations. there is a piece on the web that explains exactly what it is we can do with the troops we have at the president makes critical decisions about afghanistan. it is not just about bureaucrats in d.c.. fighting a war is a big logistical exercise. do you does want to talk about that and several surrounding decisions? >> we have become very accustomed to throwing around numbers of troops, and people have gotten way too comfortable with pulling numbers out of the air and discussing them as though they were serious. the effect of that is that very few americans actually understand that there is a method for figuring out how many troops are actually needed to accomplish something. when the recommendation comes from a military commander, this cannot just, as this white house seems to think, the co
? in 1992, you had the riots in los angeles. you could find yourself in a lawless environment in this country. the story was about a place called koreatown. there are marauding gangs going through the area burning stores, looting and robbing. the vice-president said in response to me, he said, no, you would be better off with a 12 gauge shotgun. that is his opinion, and i respect it. i have an ar-15 at home and i have not hurt anybody and i do not intend to, but i would be better off protecting my family if there was law-and-order breakdown in my neighborhood. i do not think that makes me an unreasonable person. mr. trotter when you say you speak on behalf of millions of women out there who believe an ar-15 makes them safer, there were a lot of giggles in the room, and that explains the dilemma. the people who were giggling were saying to you, that is crazy. nobody i know thinks that way. which reminds me of the harvard professor who said i cannot believe mcgovern lost. everyone i knew voted for him. i bet there are people on our side that cannot believe obama won because ever
inches from your comrade's face. now, introducing women into that environment can be really traumtic and humiliating. and combat's already difficult enough. you don't need to add this other layer. >> congress wam tulsi gabbard of hawaii, also an iraqi war vet, had news for mr. smith. >> well, ryan, i respect you and thank you for your service. i've been honored to serve with many women who've already operated under these circumstances. this is not something new. some of the things that you've described are things that i and friends of mine and people that i've served with have already experienced. >> joining us tonight, goldie taylor, msnbc contributor, managing editor of the goldie taylor project and former marine. goldie, thank you for your time tonight. your response to some of the rhetoric you just heard. >> i frankly just find it astounding. you know, women have been serving in our armed forces and in military operations around the world for decades. the fact is we're doing the job. we're helicopter pilots. we're marine corps, you know, military police officers. we're military i
to keep the cement floors warm for man's best friend. >> it's a stressful environment. we're trying to keep them as comfortable as we can. >> reporter: outside pittsburgh, when a water main broke in the middle of the night, single digit temperatures turned gushing water into a sheet of ice. subzero temps aren't all bad if you like ice boating. skimming across the ice at speeds up to 60 miles an hour in what looks like a mini kayak with a sail. for those who have to work outside -- >> as long as i bundle up really like double bundle, i'm good. i have a lot of clothes on. >> reporter: maybe the best way to get by is thinking hot. >> key largo is a great place this time of year. >> reporter: and the forecast high there today, 77 degrees. now, by contrast, in gaithersburg, maryland, yesterday dangerous for a cell phone worker who was up on a tower about 200 feet high when all of a sudden his hands went numb, his legs cramped up and a co-worker had to climb up to rescue him. he was treated at the hospital for hypothermia, but he'll be okay, so be careful out there. soledad. >> my goodnes
's a very hostile environment. so the republican party is concerned, i think talk radio is concerned. i think independent and conservative outlets are concerned. they're saying, well, how far will this white house go to wipe the debate in a way that is not productive? >> brian: do you believe, in your estimation, that the white house might have more aggressive view than even democrats in the senate and the house? >> i don't know who captured whom. i don't know who the democratic party's back the kidnap victim of. i don't know if the white house has become so progressive that it's taken over the democratic party or the democratic party has taken over the white house. i do know when john boehner says we're looking at annihilation and destruction, but we have something that's really interesting. people have to think about it today. the white house has now set up another arm, a so-called not for profit arm. so now we have branches of government raising hundreds of millions of dollars to perpetuate their viewpoint. should the supreme court do it next? should the house of representatives do i
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)